Who says they don't? The client deletes the photos. What the server does with them is a trade secret.
Facebook may well have thought $3B an excellent deal to expand their social graph database with all the photos you DON'T post to Facebook because they are too private...
Up to 60% of a self-selecting group (people who chose to do computer science at University)... can't program. I shudder to think what the rate in the general population is. Well, I don't shudder. Because it keeps me in a job.
The right-wing party hate the NHS because it represents a large slice of the economic pie that their buddies in industry want to get their fork into. They don't care that it's one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world with excellent outcomes.
The left-wing party just fucked things up by being corrupt and not having the balls to bring the contracts started by the right-wing party to an end.
The biggest crisis facing the NHS is the Public Private Partnership scheme - in which big private companies get the contract to build hospitals and other medical facilities AND a sweetheart contract to run them for 30 years, which typically runs the total cost of ownership up to around 300% of what it actually would have cost.
That was probably the killer blow - you now have hospital trusts struggling to make their buildings payments and keep their clinical services functioning at the same time, which enables the politicians to step in and say "Look, this hospital is struggling! The only thing that can save it is the Invisible Hand of the Market!"... with no actual coherent explanation of how a private company which by definition will take their cut off the top, can provide a better service than a public institution that has had years of practice at running an operation on a shoestring budget, having had their income cut to the bone so many times that their bones are now rather thin.
The Invisible Hand of the Market of course just wants to reach up the patient's backside and pull the gold fillings out of their back teeth. They don't care about the risky, expensive, uncommon, and difficult procedures, they care about the assembly-line procedures and services that have predictable consumption rates and costs, like hip replacements, haemorrhoids, etc, which they can monetize nicely, ignoring the fact that that surplus on these procedures is what paid for the difficult stuff, like open heart surgery that saves the lives of babies with congenital defects.
The destruction of the NHS is just outright evil, because it will result in less healthcare (because doing less and charging more makes more money), at a greater cost (when the NHS struggles, the private company is brought in. When the private company struggles, it will be bailed out), for less of the people that need it (the lower social demographics require NHS services disproportionately more and are less likely to be able to stump up the co-pay), all to line the pockets of a few Conservative party donors. Doing bad unto others for your own benefit or amusement being the definition of evil.
The banks LOVE mortgage debt.. it lets them dream up money. Don't tell me that they didn't lobby for all those changes.
* It's entirely backed by assets, thus it's much less risky than loans to business
Unfortunately, once a house is a house, it's a house. It's not going to be more of a house next year. They don't increase in actual real value, but their price goes up.
If you lend to a business, you have to contend with the idea that your money may disappear entirely and you may never recover it due to bankruptcy law.
* It provides capital growth with no investment or effort
Because property values go up, the banks can invent more money, again "risk free".
Banks LOVE (and lobby in favour of) government programs that encourage house buying because it gives them a license to print money, which equates with power.
The plug itself incorporates a processor which detects the plug's orientation and routes the electrical signals to the correct pins. Official Lightning connectors contain an authentication chip that makes it difficult for third-party manufacturers to produce compatible accessories without being approved by Apple.
Git is actually very hard to break like this, especially if you sign commits.
Every revision has a unique SHA-1 identifier which is an aggregate hash of the entire content of the tree, AND the commit comments, AND the preceding revision hash. Slipping something like this directly into the repository would cause a vast cascade of ID changes that many people would notice instantly. If you sign key commits and build systems that enforce the presence of those signatures, it's pretty difficult to finagle like this.
But yeah, CVS, you can probably hack on the repo with a text editor and get away with it.
But there's no way they could afford their artisan lawn mowing service in a capitalist economy, because once labour is inessential, they will have no job to pay for it.
The inalienable rights of man need to include an equal fraction of the planet's resources and the output if the robot labour.
And the reason it's cheaper is because of the artificial price depression caused by selling the US National Helium Reserve.
Once you let that helium leak into the atmosphere, it's gone.
Just like how oil shale is now considered profitable, despite it's much lower EROI compared to light sweet crude, extracting helium from low-grade gas mixtures would one day seem economically attractive. If we weren't chuffing [1] it away by handing it to kids in 2 litre containers.
[1] to "chuff" is a North UK slang for farting. Seemed more appropriate than pissing, for a gas.
To follow : my employer also uses the same assertion...
I work for a government org. We have our own secure email server network. All mail within our domain travels across the wire from client to server and vice-versa encrypted (SSL), and only to mail servers that we control. There are classes of information we are only supposed to send to mail addresses on our own domain. We are encouraged to do so.
I *still* wouldn't trust it with anything I wanted to remain private, personally, because it's stored as plaintext [1] in a relatively few mail servers administered by a private company. Any sysadmin could dump the lot and sell it to an interested party. And I'm willing to bet that there are many interested parties with deeper pockets than the guys who pay Google to advertise at you.
For public email, it's the same problem, except you don't have the luxury of knowing where the servers your mail lands on are located, and who the sysadmins are.
Encryption is the only solution that limits the set of persons able to read that mail to the intended recipient [2]. If we established that as the standard means of private email rather than mucking about with our own private mail infrastructure, then we could send private mail to ANYONE, not just people privileged enough to have a mail address on our domain. [3]
Even if you encrypt your bodies, you can still harvest that contentious "metadata".
[1] even if the server has an encrypted file system, the mail records are plaintext within that, because the server has to read them [2] assuming no-one screwed up their key management, software installation, personal workstation security, etc
[3] Alas, our data security guidelines were written by GCHQ, and have rather more of a focus on keeping escrowed access to data than actual data privacy. I guess those spy guys really don't trust ANYONE, including themselves, but their recommendations are just dumb for civil applications where trust is important and a system which can spoof signatures is unacceptable. We live in an era where gaining actual data privacy is far easier than systems that *appear* private but are riddled with nasty little loopholes and backdoors. Go figure.
Doesn't matter if it's encrypted on the wire. Unless the body of the mail is encrypted, the email server can still read it. Mail can be relayed through any number of intervening SMTP servers and it's only historical trend, not any intrinsic feature of the protocol, that means that the number of servers a given email passes through these days is pretty small (and for GMail to GMail, probably never leaves Google's network).
That's like saying the postcards are transported between postal depots in an armoured car, but the untrustworthy guys at each depot can still read them, copy them, etc. It's not what happens on the wire that concerns people (even if that should worry them too).
Mmm, but email is still an open protocol, from the days when everyone was trustworthy on the internet.
It's the equivalent of handing a postcard to a guy wearing a postmasters hat on the street, and saying "hey, can you get this to John Smith of Omaha?".
You have no say over how that guy delivers the service (if he delivers it at all). That card will be handed on through a number of pairs of hands. Each guy in the chain might copy it, read it, snigger about your pet names for your girlfriend, etc.
Now, imagine you had the same system, but you can put your mail in an envelope that's actually an indestructible lockbox which absolutely magically can't be opened without the key. The lockboxes are basically free, but the recipient has to do a little preparation in order to be able to open them. It's actually a lot better than postal mail, because people can steam paper envelopes much easier.
The problem is how email is presented to people. It's fundamental nature is unacceptable to people with privacy concerns, and if they actually knew that before starting to use it, they'd be better off.
You get a prize. I'm astonished no one else pointed this out yet.
I've been a GMail user since the beta, and it was obvious then. It was even made obvious in the press releases.
Moreover, the real WTF here is that people use email with any expectation of privacy at all. The "envelope" icon used by most email programs is a giant lie.
If the postal service is mail in envelopes delivered by mostly trustworthy postmen, then email is postcards delivered by random junkies, some of whom are NSA agents and other similar nefarious types in disguise.
It's an open protocol. You send mail to the server, as plaintext, and it's then forwarded through a bunch of other servers, as plaintext, until it gets to it's recipient. This has always been the case. The only thing that's changed in modern times is the chain of servers has gotten a little shorter in most cases.
If you want privacy, invest in envelopes - or for email, encryption.
Is isn't privacy. Email is an open protocol. You wouldn't send private communications on postcards, because the postman could read it. This is the same thing.
If you don't know this about email... well, it's as well that people learn.
It's beneficial to the customer, because it funds the free email service they are receiving.
If they don't like it, they can take their custom elsewhere. Where they will also still be sending and receiving plaintext email to a server that can read everything.
Email is an open protocol. The only way that you don't get your email read by things is to encrypt it.
For Excel diffs, a traditional diff program with a conversion shim is useful.
I've been a long time user of Beyond Compare 3 which supports pre and post diff / merge transform steps ; not OSS or FreeBeer but very capable and well worth the pro / cross platform license cost IMHO.
Of course, a much lower percentage of the population would have been infected back then - people were much less mobile in 1918. I don't think twice about driving 100 miles a day.
if you limit the supply to pharmacies then most smokers will go for regular cigarettes instead which isn't really the outcome most people would prefer.
I believe the point of making them medical devices is that this is the outcome that the tobacco manufacturers will prefer, even if the nicotine is extracted from their tobacco.
No brand recognition from taking out your e-Cig from it's carrying wallet and vaping the fluid inside - no pack. It will totally change the landscape of nicotine vehicle marketing and that terrifies them.
The other aspect to the birth defects thing is to realise that a woman's supply of eggs is retained throughout their life - genetic damage from toxins like those in smoke will have accumulated over their lifespan and there's not the continuous fresh supply of gametes like you have with men.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if someone hides them in his lucky rabbit foot keyring!?!?
Who says they don't? The client deletes the photos. What the server does with them is a trade secret.
Facebook may well have thought $3B an excellent deal to expand their social graph database with all the photos you DON'T post to Facebook because they are too private...
You could probably replace most of them with a shell script.
Nice troll :-)
Most people can't program
Up to 60% of a self-selecting group (people who chose to do computer science at University)... can't program. I shudder to think what the rate in the general population is. Well, I don't shudder. Because it keeps me in a job.
The right-wing party hate the NHS because it represents a large slice of the economic pie that their buddies in industry want to get their fork into. They don't care that it's one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world with excellent outcomes.
The left-wing party just fucked things up by being corrupt and not having the balls to bring the contracts started by the right-wing party to an end.
The biggest crisis facing the NHS is the Public Private Partnership scheme - in which big private companies get the contract to build hospitals and other medical facilities AND a sweetheart contract to run them for 30 years, which typically runs the total cost of ownership up to around 300% of what it actually would have cost.
That was probably the killer blow - you now have hospital trusts struggling to make their buildings payments and keep their clinical services functioning at the same time, which enables the politicians to step in and say "Look, this hospital is struggling! The only thing that can save it is the Invisible Hand of the Market!" ... with no actual coherent explanation of how a private company which by definition will take their cut off the top, can provide a better service than a public institution that has had years of practice at running an operation on a shoestring budget, having had their income cut to the bone so many times that their bones are now rather thin.
The Invisible Hand of the Market of course just wants to reach up the patient's backside and pull the gold fillings out of their back teeth. They don't care about the risky, expensive, uncommon, and difficult procedures, they care about the assembly-line procedures and services that have predictable consumption rates and costs, like hip replacements, haemorrhoids, etc, which they can monetize nicely, ignoring the fact that that surplus on these procedures is what paid for the difficult stuff, like open heart surgery that saves the lives of babies with congenital defects.
The destruction of the NHS is just outright evil, because it will result in less healthcare (because doing less and charging more makes more money), at a greater cost (when the NHS struggles, the private company is brought in. When the private company struggles, it will be bailed out), for less of the people that need it (the lower social demographics require NHS services disproportionately more and are less likely to be able to stump up the co-pay), all to line the pockets of a few Conservative party donors. Doing bad unto others for your own benefit or amusement being the definition of evil.
The banks LOVE mortgage debt.. it lets them dream up money. Don't tell me that they didn't lobby for all those changes.
* It's entirely backed by assets, thus it's much less risky than loans to business
Unfortunately, once a house is a house, it's a house. It's not going to be more of a house next year. They don't increase in actual real value, but their price goes up.
If you lend to a business, you have to contend with the idea that your money may disappear entirely and you may never recover it due to bankruptcy law.
* It provides capital growth with no investment or effort
Because property values go up, the banks can invent more money, again "risk free".
Banks LOVE (and lobby in favour of) government programs that encourage house buying because it gives them a license to print money, which equates with power.
The plug itself incorporates a processor which detects the plug's orientation and routes the electrical signals to the correct pins. Official Lightning connectors contain an authentication chip that makes it difficult for third-party manufacturers to produce compatible accessories without being approved by Apple.
I read a biography of Ayn Rand and felt really sorry for her.
Git is actually very hard to break like this, especially if you sign commits.
Every revision has a unique SHA-1 identifier which is an aggregate hash of the entire content of the tree, AND the commit comments, AND the preceding revision hash. Slipping something like this directly into the repository would cause a vast cascade of ID changes that many people would notice instantly. If you sign key commits and build systems that enforce the presence of those signatures, it's pretty difficult to finagle like this.
But yeah, CVS, you can probably hack on the repo with a text editor and get away with it.
But there's no way they could afford their artisan lawn mowing service in a capitalist economy, because once labour is inessential, they will have no job to pay for it.
The inalienable rights of man need to include an equal fraction of the planet's resources and the output if the robot labour.
And the reason it's cheaper is because of the artificial price depression caused by selling the US National Helium Reserve.
Once you let that helium leak into the atmosphere, it's gone.
Just like how oil shale is now considered profitable, despite it's much lower EROI compared to light sweet crude, extracting helium from low-grade gas mixtures would one day seem economically attractive. If we weren't chuffing [1] it away by handing it to kids in 2 litre containers.
[1] to "chuff" is a North UK slang for farting. Seemed more appropriate than pissing, for a gas.
To follow : my employer also uses the same assertion...
I work for a government org. We have our own secure email server network. All mail within our domain travels across the wire from client to server and vice-versa encrypted (SSL), and only to mail servers that we control. There are classes of information we are only supposed to send to mail addresses on our own domain. We are encouraged to do so.
I *still* wouldn't trust it with anything I wanted to remain private, personally, because it's stored as plaintext [1] in a relatively few mail servers administered by a private company. Any sysadmin could dump the lot and sell it to an interested party. And I'm willing to bet that there are many interested parties with deeper pockets than the guys who pay Google to advertise at you.
For public email, it's the same problem, except you don't have the luxury of knowing where the servers your mail lands on are located, and who the sysadmins are.
Encryption is the only solution that limits the set of persons able to read that mail to the intended recipient [2]. If we established that as the standard means of private email rather than mucking about with our own private mail infrastructure, then we could send private mail to ANYONE, not just people privileged enough to have a mail address on our domain. [3]
Even if you encrypt your bodies, you can still harvest that contentious "metadata".
[1] even if the server has an encrypted file system, the mail records are plaintext within that, because the server has to read them
[2] assuming no-one screwed up their key management, software installation, personal workstation security, etc
[3] Alas, our data security guidelines were written by GCHQ, and have rather more of a focus on keeping escrowed access to data than actual data privacy. I guess those spy guys really don't trust ANYONE, including themselves, but their recommendations are just dumb for civil applications where trust is important and a system which can spoof signatures is unacceptable. We live in an era where gaining actual data privacy is far easier than systems that *appear* private but are riddled with nasty little loopholes and backdoors. Go figure.
Doesn't matter if it's encrypted on the wire. Unless the body of the mail is encrypted, the email server can still read it. Mail can be relayed through any number of intervening SMTP servers and it's only historical trend, not any intrinsic feature of the protocol, that means that the number of servers a given email passes through these days is pretty small (and for GMail to GMail, probably never leaves Google's network).
That's like saying the postcards are transported between postal depots in an armoured car, but the untrustworthy guys at each depot can still read them, copy them, etc. It's not what happens on the wire that concerns people (even if that should worry them too).
Mmm, but email is still an open protocol, from the days when everyone was trustworthy on the internet.
It's the equivalent of handing a postcard to a guy wearing a postmasters hat on the street, and saying "hey, can you get this to John Smith of Omaha?".
You have no say over how that guy delivers the service (if he delivers it at all). That card will be handed on through a number of pairs of hands. Each guy in the chain might copy it, read it, snigger about your pet names for your girlfriend, etc.
Now, imagine you had the same system, but you can put your mail in an envelope that's actually an indestructible lockbox which absolutely magically can't be opened without the key. The lockboxes are basically free, but the recipient has to do a little preparation in order to be able to open them. It's actually a lot better than postal mail, because people can steam paper envelopes much easier.
The problem is how email is presented to people. It's fundamental nature is unacceptable to people with privacy concerns, and if they actually knew that before starting to use it, they'd be better off.
You get a prize. I'm astonished no one else pointed this out yet.
I've been a GMail user since the beta, and it was obvious then. It was even made obvious in the press releases.
Moreover, the real WTF here is that people use email with any expectation of privacy at all. The "envelope" icon used by most email programs is a giant lie.
If the postal service is mail in envelopes delivered by mostly trustworthy postmen, then email is postcards delivered by random junkies, some of whom are NSA agents and other similar nefarious types in disguise.
It's an open protocol. You send mail to the server, as plaintext, and it's then forwarded through a bunch of other servers, as plaintext, until it gets to it's recipient. This has always been the case. The only thing that's changed in modern times is the chain of servers has gotten a little shorter in most cases.
If you want privacy, invest in envelopes - or for email, encryption.
Is isn't privacy. Email is an open protocol. You wouldn't send private communications on postcards, because the postman could read it. This is the same thing.
If you don't know this about email... well, it's as well that people learn.
Email is more like a postcard - no effort is made to hide it's contents.
The USPS *does* routinely scan both external surfaces of all letters and postcards to determine where to send them.
It's beneficial to the customer, because it funds the free email service they are receiving.
If they don't like it, they can take their custom elsewhere. Where they will also still be sending and receiving plaintext email to a server that can read everything.
Email is an open protocol. The only way that you don't get your email read by things is to encrypt it.
For Excel diffs, a traditional diff program with a conversion shim is useful.
I've been a long time user of Beyond Compare 3 which supports pre and post diff / merge transform steps ; not OSS or FreeBeer but very capable and well worth the pro / cross platform license cost IMHO.
Of course, a much lower percentage of the population would have been infected back then - people were much less mobile in 1918. I don't think twice about driving 100 miles a day.
He's using the possessive sense. Spelling is something that the other possesses. Seems correct to me.
if you limit the supply to pharmacies then most smokers will go for regular cigarettes instead which isn't really the outcome most people would prefer.
I believe the point of making them medical devices is that this is the outcome that the tobacco manufacturers will prefer, even if the nicotine is extracted from their tobacco.
No brand recognition from taking out your e-Cig from it's carrying wallet and vaping the fluid inside - no pack. It will totally change the landscape of nicotine vehicle marketing and that terrifies them.
The other aspect to the birth defects thing is to realise that a woman's supply of eggs is retained throughout their life - genetic damage from toxins like those in smoke will have accumulated over their lifespan and there's not the continuous fresh supply of gametes like you have with men.
Aside from anything else, he was flying to go on vacation, so you're not really wasting very much time with "Facts" yourself, are you?
And of course, the spelling and grammar nazi has made an error in his post!
<fires self>